GirlChat #504101


Does Evolution give a fuck?

Posted by Sigma on 2010-June-12 21:59:27 EDT, Saturday
In reply to Re: I can… posted by Lateralus on 2010-June-12 18:03:04 EDT, Saturday

  Views: 1    Likes: 0     
There's no good reason to believe that evolution gives a fuck (no pun intended) about reproductive viability, or well, anything.

While Creation stories are just as credible as the legend of Santa Claus, evo psych theories are often conflicting just-so stories that smell of bullshit rationalization ex post facto. I've seen evo psych used to show that hebephilia is normal and adaptive, and I've seen it used to show that hebephilia is abnormal and maladaptive.

One could easily do the same with pedophilia. I'll do it now: although a prepubescent girl is unable to conceive, she will normally develop that ability - even before she looks very phenotypically "adult." A man who goes out of his way to fuck her will likely be the first to impregnate her - which means he can be far more sure that it is his genes that are being reproduced. Pedophilia is evolutionarily adaptive - very much so. See how easy that is? It might be "made up," but no more than myriad other evo psych guesses out there.

At any rate, a man doesn't need to be sexually attracted to a reproductive mate in order to reproduce with her. There are legions of homosexually inclined men who stay in the closet, marry, and have kids. Why would exclusive pedophiles be any different? As with other ostensibly non-reproductive inclinations, there's also no reason to believe that most people with pedophilic (which, from the evidence, may be most people) are exclusives.

Sexual desires clearly exist and perpetuate themselves without need for either God's or evolutionary psychologists' approval. There's no clear evolutionary "reason" for women to have orgasms - but they do. There's no evident evolutionary "necessity" for women to have any strong sexual desires at all (male-on-female rape can be just as reproductive as consensual intercourse), but they do.

It's also worth noting that the notion of human sexuality breaking down into a neat list of mutually exclusive, discrete 'sexual orientations' is quite modern and based more on political intrigue than inquiry. I would take it with a grain of salt, or better yet a whole pillar on par with the one Lot's wife was supposedly turned into. I'm strongly sexually attracted to both women and girls, and all gradations in between. I'd not be satisfied with ONLY 'fully developed' women but I can find them very sexy - so what orientation is that? According to some versions of pedo-PC I'm not supposed to exist, yet I suspect people like me far outnumber exclusives!


This post is archived, preventing any new replies.

Responses